Skip to main content

About your Search

20121222
20121230
STATION
MSNBCW 9
CSPAN 5
CNBC 1
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 18
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
he choose congressman paul ryan? guest: to a certain extent he was pressured into doing it by the mainstream republican establishment. i can tell you from the perspective of chicago, i was ridiculed a lot when i reported this, but they were really worried about tim pawlenty and they felt they could deliver some of those midwestern states in a way to ryan did not. ryan did not deliver his home state or even come close. towards the tail end of the campaign, he was not much of a presence. host: the announcement came at 9:00 in the morning, the last day of the olympics. why the timing? why not wait until the following week? if you're going to select congressman ryan, run on the rhine and budget. guest: they wanted to get it in before then but there was the massacre at the sikh temple. i don't know exactly what the study on why they did not wait, but i think romney saw a lot of himself in ryan. serious, cares about policy and ideas. i think he saw him as someone who could be a respectable running mate to help him politically what you could really help him. romney thought he w
overtake him is paul ryan. there's really no indication that paul ryan wants to go against john boehner. in fact, from all the reporting that we've done, john boehner and paul ryan seem pretty close, even though they have differed on some things. it seems orchestrated, to be honest, and to give paul ryan potentially a chance later on maybe to be speaker when john boehner leaves. >> one more question for kristen. what happens to other issues like gun control and immigration? which one of those in particular would the president most likely top his agenda with? >> well, i think gun control right now certainly has been taking up the majority of the president's focus in light of the tragedy in connecticut, so what's interesting is several weeks ago we would have said immigration, but gun control has certainly moved up to the forefront. i think immigration is still going to be a big issue on president obama's policy agenda in the new year, but i do think gun control is going to be right up there with immigration. melissa? >> kristen, thank you. >> what do you think? >> i really think immigrat
john boehner is a paul ryan, and really he hasn't expressed interest. >> going on to say we have a republican party today willing to eliminate any prospect for decent future for anyone including itself. if it cannot abe future that is 100% in accordance with its core beliefs and principles that's not governing. that's lobbing hand grenades. if you are only stabbeding on principle to appear taller, then you appear smaller, and the gop is shrinking daily before our eyes. if leadership casting vision, calling all your people to rise up, and we just watched what happened with lan b and speaker boehner trying to call his people to rise up, and you say his leadership really not in question unless paul ryan really wants it. do you think that people having these types of perspectives, like a mark mckinnan, that doesn't really ring true coming into the new year for speaker boehner. >> look, the problem for republicans and for moderate republicans like mark mckinnan is most of the people in the house are not of the mark mckinnan stripe. these are people who are from districts where they've
romney when he was talking about the 47%, like paul ryan when he was talking about makers versus takers there are an awful lot of folks in congress that folks are unemployed because they want to be unemployed, because they're lazy or something like that. it's simply false. i hate 20 go too far on a holiday metaphor, but if you go back and you read charles dickens, you see where the two gentlemen come to visit ebenezer scrooge on christmas eve and suggest to him that he might want to give a little to
how that has played out for politicians liking to vault themselves onto the national stage. >>> paul ryan, what do we expect from him in 2013? >> obviously not where he would want to be, back in the house of representatives, not in the west wing helping to lead the country, but he's not going to fall back into the shadows. he's already continued to prove himself on the fiscal cliff as a key negotiator as somebody who john boehner is talking to -- >> ashley judd? >> what would this list be without star-studded powder. ashley judd is one that a lot of democrats are hoping could run against senate minority leader for mitch mcconnell. she's a main power, a fund-raising machine and eighth-generation kentuckyian who could take on mcconnell in his own state. >> probably watching that state today. a business kentucky fan. >>> for all the 13 to watch, we're putting a link to the article on our website. log-on. that's there as well as a whole lot more. >>> thomas roberts is up next. thomas, good to see you, i see it's a gray suit day. >> i got the memo. >>> next hour getting your driving gear
together plan. paul ryan, the big deficit guy, or so he says, he was on the simpson-bowles commission, and he voted against it, as did every other house republican on the commission. the white house saw no reason to embrace something that raised taxes so sky high and so the white house brought out something that was frankly to the right of simpson-bowles. their budget was to its right and they thought it had a better chance of passing. they thought it was a compromise. but the house republicans did not respond the same way. when they brought out the ryan budget, which was their budget alternative, they didn't compromise. they went way to the right. there was no compromise in it at all. that is fact number one. number two, in 2010 republicans won the midterm election. 2011 the white house agreed to a deal that was all spending cuts. it is the budget control act. it cuts spending by $1.8 trillion over the next decade. except for an increase in pell grants, the bill is all cuts, no taxes. and democrats agree to that. they agreed. that is fact number two. fact number three. at this point
ideology in play, folks who i think like mitt romney when he was talking about the 47%, like paul ryan when he was talking about makers versus takers there are an awful lot of folks in congress that folks are unemployed because they want to be unemployed, because they're lazy or something like that. it's simply false. i hate 20 go too far on a holiday metaphor, but if you go back and you
virginia. caller: hi. .ost: you are on, sir caller: the hero i have is paul ryan. he is very intellectual when it comes to finances. the hero for 2012. host: could you expand why he's your hero? caller: what he outlined when he was one for vice president is what i am basing it on. host: has he always been a hero of yours? caller: i had been paying attention to him even before this. host: then the vice presidency run added to that. caller: yes. host: what would you like to see out of him? caller: to run again and be the president of the united states. host: that is jim from virginia. we have been talking about political heroes. we will talk to you about who you missed the most with the least when it comes to congress. congressional departures, who you missed the most and least. we will have a discussion about foreign policy. joining us will be eli lake. we will talk about some of the major events this year and on going in terms of foreign policy. later up, juan williams from fox news. we will take up those discussions as we continue "washington journal" on this christmas day. [video clip]
to continue the tax -- lower tax rates for all americans. we want to go to the tax reform that's in the paul ryan budget. the house of representatives has already pass ed twice the ryan budget, which reforms taxes for all americans, takes the top rate to 25%, which is what the europeans do for the business community. we want to go there. how do you get there? i'm not sure that defeating plan b strengthens our ability to get there. i think, in fact, that plan b was a good step in the right direction towards protecting and continuing the tax cuts for everybody. >> and do you think that republicans sort of shot themselves in the foot because they defeated this. at the end of the day, the votes might be there for tax increases that from the republican perspective, are even worse than what the speaker offered that they wouldn't let him even bring up for a vote. >> as i read the speaker's proposal, plan b, i thought it moved us in the direction of maintaining all the bush tax cu cuts. look, this is not a fight that begins and ends the first week of january. there's going to be a regular fight on t
, not going to lead to a better outcome.-- senator paul ryan. neither party is willing to address that because it requires tough choices americans are not willing to hear about. the only person in a position to tell them about that is the man in the white house, because he does not have to run for reelection. he the only guy with term limits. taxes --k taxes -to guest: think about all the gaming that would go on into that. from a theoretical perspective, real income being taxed would be better than taxing nominal income, which is what you are talking about, being taxed the same real income the same. unfortunately, that would likely be to all kinds of costs that would far outweigh the benefits. as it is, we computer and consumer price index in each region of the country. it is subject to criticism because there are limits to what economists can do. i don't think economists should have that responsibility. host: let's go to belleville, michigan, denise is an independent. caller: good morning. it's an honor to speak to you, professor. it quickly reply to that republican, the bill but the senators
in terms of how much romney they wanted to show. host: why did he choose congressman paul ryan? guest: to a certain extent he was pressured into doing it by the mainstream republican establishment. i can tell you from the perspective of chicago, i was ridiculed a lot when i reported this, but they were really worried about tim pawlenty and they felt they could deliver some of those midwestern states in a way to ryan did not. ryan did not deliver his home state or even come close. towards the tail end of the campaign, he was not much of a presence. host: the announcement came at 9:00 in the morning, the last day of the olympics. why the timing? why not wait until the following week? if you're going to select congressman ryan, run on the rhine and budget. guest: they wanted to get it in before then but there was the massacre at the sikh temple. what thenow exactly study on why they did not wait, but i think romney saw a lot of himself in ryan. serious, cares about policy and ideas. i think he saw him as someone who could be a respectable running mate to help him politically what you cou
-simpson. the president didn't support it. paul ryan didn't support it. it didn't have the kind of bipartisan consensus we needed. gotten us $4 in spending cuts for one dollar in revenue increase. bottom line we lack common purpose as a nation. both parties i believe are to be blamed. gregg, as we go to the end of the year and the christmas season i would hope we would have a common purpose, put partisanship aside and say how do we put the nation first? sadly, no one is doing that. gregg: it is interesting what doug just said, terry. i want you to react to that. he says both sides will get blamed. why is it the polls show only republicans really get the blame? >> well the president has the bully pulpit. he has the ability to go out and have campaign speeches and control the national debate in a way that the house republicans simply don't have. the president has the ability to shape the opinions that are being made about, and how the news is being covered. so he has a huge advantage and he has demonstrated time and again to demonstrate campaign tactics over the nuts and bolts of policy and debate here in w
replace him with? i did not think paul ryan has an interest in doing it. the republicans should be sitting down and asking themselves why they let the democrats define the rules of debate on the fiscal cliff. the house should have passed a bill saying you cannot use money for medicare to finance obamacare. the plan to finance obamacare and the house should have passed a bill on that. or how about passing a bill that any reform of entitlements -- medicare and social security -- cannot involve taking away benefits from those on the system today and those about to go on the system. you can make good reforms to young people. they should have passed a tax simplification bill. host: next call comes from john in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. president eisenhower, the rate for the top taxpayers never went below 91%. now we cannot seem to get it up to 39%. in 2001, we had the largest budget surplus ever. 10 years later it would have the largest deficit ever. in 2001, we had $5 trillion in debt. we gained $10 trillion in debt in less than 10 years. $5 chilean was because of th
cuts during the campaign, mitt romney and paul ryan and all the republicans, who wanted to do the exact same thing he did, they jumped on his case for proposing cuts to medicare. so how can you negotiate with a party that isn't serious about its own caucus, and isn't capable of controlling them and doesn't have a serious plan for dealing with spending cuts on its own, because it's afraid to take the heat? nobody wants to cut spending. let's just admit that. but if we're going to do it, somebody's got to take the heat and the republicans have been the party advocating it for so long, so take the heat republicans and tell us exactly what you're going to do. are you going to cut mortgage interest deductions, charitable deductions, federal and state tax deductions? let us know where you're going to do to pay for this debt reduction that you want. >> the fact of the matter is, it's not going to get done with just spending cuts or increased taxes, it's going to have to be a combination of both, and right now the worst part of it is, and i think where we see the instability, especially when it
and honestly deal with entitlement reform that saves the program, doesn't lose them to the paul ryan budget approach but saves the program in a fiscally responsible way. now, that's the first thing we should agree on. both sides have to come together and be prepared to give. the second thing is it takes both sides. what speaker boehner proved to us last week is if you try to do so-called plan b in the republican caucus, no hope. but if you take a measure to the floor of the house and invite democratic and republican support for it, you can pass it. i believe you can, as we can in the senate. that's what needs to be done. we need to have some grassroots efforts in the house and the senate of senators from both sides of the aisle who are preparing to work on a bipartisan basis to solve this problem. to say we should have done this long ago is to overlook the obvious. until november 6, we didn't know who the president would be for this new -- new administration. and now we do. it would have been a much different debate, a different outcome if the american voters had not chosen president obama
and ryan i want to get you in on this. what she is saying is chuck hagel is now the decoy. you see some people being behind michelle. and one of those luminaries bill kristol, paul wolfewitz has praised her. is this a back handed strategy to build support for the first potential defense secretary? >> i think it almost has to be. because it would be so easy to put him out there and defeat a republican. because it would be a political win/win for him then. if he gets confirmed, then they've got hagel. if he doesn't, then republicans look insanely obstructionist by blocking somebody in their own party from joining the cabinet. so why couldn't obama do that? one answer might be that he doesn't actually want him to be his first choice. you know, especially coming after the entire susan rice thing. they could have forced republicans to knock down susan rice in a more official way. but they let him get away without more heat. >> i love the idea that instead of a republican no offense to the republican party believe it or not coming from me, i would love to see this woman be nominated because a
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)